Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Coast

Motorists To Take The Blame For All Cycle Crashes

Recommended Posts

The government is being advised to make motorists automatically responsible in all accidents involving cyclists, a move that could cause insurance premiums to soar.

A Department for Transport funded agency called Cycling England is calling for a change in civil law to make drivers liable for compensation and other insurance costs. "I would like to see the legal onus placed on motorists when there are accidents" says Phillip Darnton, chief executive of Cycling England.

www.pistonheads.com/news

:lol: Being a regular cyclist and car driver, I can see both sides - but you can never make one group culpable for all accidents between cycles and cars surely?

www.telegraph.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.pistonheads.com/news

:lol: Being a regular cyclist and car driver, I can see both sides - but you can never make one group culpable for all accidents between cycles and cars surely?

www.telegraph.co.uk

Being somebody who frequently either drives, or is a passenger, around London roads in particular, this NONSENSE makes my BLOOD BOIL!!!!. To think there are idiots somewhere being paid to produce these ideas infuriates me...it SMACKS with the scent of a Labour hand, though tragically I feel it'll emerge a Tory idea :o

Based on my observations, cyclists commit more road offences in one journey than the average car driver does in an entire year! If drivers haven't got enough to look out for, including other vehicles, they now run the risk of being blamed outright for the mindless morons on their bikes!

Admittedly, the majority of cyclists are sensible. HOWEVER, so are the majority of drivers.

The number of times in the last week alone I have travelled around London, and had the thought "If I knocked you down then and killed you, dont think for one minute I'd have the slightest sympathy for you"...why the hell should I feel bad, or even be made culpable under LAW, because some IMBECILE hurtles through a red light into oncoming traffic, or out of a secondary road into a primary road, or my favourite, decides they no longer want to ride close to the curb and without looking, venture to the middle of the road!!

IMO, each case should be assessed and judged on merit...there are enough poxy CCTV cameras around this flipping country these days that at least one would be pick up a car vs cycle incident.

At the risk of sounding like a Political Correctness fuhrer, I can see little difference between this nonsense, and a statement saying "In the case of an altercation between a young person of white ethnicity and young person of black ethnicity, due to the higher relative incidence of crime being committed by black youths compared to white, black youths will automatically be apportioned blame unless proven otherwise"....this is of course an outrageous and simply unjust and unfounded pile of claptrap...the same logic should be applied to tosh in those links...

Apologies, however Coast has provided the vent I have been looking for on this subject!! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a pedestrian in C London, i think that quite often its a 50/50 thing. i often see cyclists ignore red lights, riding on pavements and generally ignoring the highway code. although, to be fair, a lot of motorists are just as bad. a word of warning if you ever come into C London. when crossing the road, dont look for the green man and walk out expecting it to be safe. because most traffic (bikes and cars) will cross the lights a good 10 seconds after the green man has lit up allowing you to cross :lol:

a work collegue cycles into work from docklands. and he commented that this morning he saw 3 people riding bikes with no lights or reflective gear on. (its pretty dark at 0600 in the morning now)

i wonder if Phillip Darnton, chief executive of Cycling England would have the same opinion if cyclist were to be insured against accidents :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember the last time I saw someone cycling on the road! :lol: :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just ban all cars?

You can breathe in the streets again.

You can sleep at night with the windows open.

No more risking life and limb every time you want to visit the nearby supermarket which has been specifically designed to be inaccessible to anyone except morons in tin boxes :o :o :o

95% of the population will be unable to leave home making the world a better place for all normal people :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just ban all cars?

You can breathe in the streets again.

You can sleep at night with the windows open.

No more risking life and limb every time you want to visit the nearby supermarket which has been specifically designed to be inaccessible to anyone except morons in tin boxes :angry::angry::angry:

95% of the population will be unable to leave home making the world a better place for all normal people :rolleyes:

I think this case you're not normal.

I vote for banning of all cyclists they run you down on the pavement run you down crossing the road and ignore red lights and most traffic signs.

Now what did I see today. Ah yes a cyclist riding the wrong way up a street trying to cycle past a bus that was turning left. Bus was turning before he got there. Of course the cyclist wasn't taking account of the fact that the space he was riding into would be getting less as the bus swung. They didn't collide but he didn't have much space left.

Or the cyclist the other day who thought was a good idea too undertake a car turning left in front of him. No collision but a very foolish act by the cyclist.

However my favorite was this cyclist who decide to squeeze past this oil tanker. He hit his pedal against the curb and fell off. Luckily onto the pavement and not under the tanker. He also damage the bike the foot pedal was nicely bent. Somehow I don't think he learn't his lesson though..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this about push bikes or motorbikes?

Motorbikes:

They do generally break road rules alot (I know, I used to ride motorbikes)

They are just as responsible for road crashes as car users are.

At greater risk of fatality.

Good points though include, cleaner for the environment, more manouverable, take up less space, etc.

Pushbikes:

Should remain in cycling lanes or @ least the pavement (if respectful of pedestrians),

Are generally more to blame than drivers as they are "Too slow", Wobbling about as out of breath, try to cut corners more often.

Good points include being virtually non pollutant bar BO and sweat/farts, take up less space, keeps you healthy.

In general though blame should not automatically be placed without due consideration for the causes, therefore I consider this idea should be thrown in the trash bin among many other ideas well (not) thought out by our goverment......we pay Police force with tax-payers money, road tax included, so why not let them continue to do their job and investigate traffic accidents properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I'm not surprised at all at this proposal. There is a growing consensus among those who take an interest in transport policy that "the motorists are the problem, so the only way to sort it is to be increasingly draconian against those evil motorists", and if my conversations with such people are anything to go by, there's a lot of defensiveness over that view as well. It has big issues of course- e.g. the alienation of motorists, and working towards a balance at the lowest common denominator.

Hence proposals like this, an extreme example of the policy of giving cyclists more right of way over motorists (making driving less attractive, and cycling more attractive, in one go). That's basically what this is about. As with pretty much any rule of this kind, I am against it because it would open the door for considerable abuse- cyclists riding more dangerously knowing that the motorists have to yield because if they crash it's the motorist's fault, to give just one example. I don't expect this proposal to get through Parliament, but on the other hand, I won't be surprised if it gets gradually phased in over the next couple of decades, in small, tolerable (from the general public's point of view) increments.

Regarding cycling on the pavement, I've posted before about some odd double standards. People complain about cycling on the pavement wherever it's illegal, but there are a few pavements here and there that are designated as shared pedestrian/cycle routes, in which case it is legal. Nobody seems to complain about people cycling on those- why? The implication is that many people consider cycling on the pavement to be wrong because it's illegal, which is one-half of a circular argument (things are usually made illegal on the basis that they're wrong). If it was made legal, or a decent segregated cycle network was introduced (amounting to much the same thing) then I would probably take up cycling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah

1. A quick read of the Cycling England website makes no mention of this whatsoever - a bit strange if it really is a 'key policy' of theirs............

2. This appeared in Pistonheads.com - well, there's a balanced website bound to paint a fair picture with regards to cycling !!!!!!

3. Even the Torygraph, in it's own report, (which has in no way been worded to take a sly swipe at Government departments of course............), has to admit "......a spokesman for the Department of Transport said the proposals were not being considered by ministers and added: “Cyclists are traffic and are subject to the same laws as other traffic. They are responsible for their own actions and whether insured or not are liable for the consequences of their actions.” "

A classic example of another piece of hysterical 'feed them what they want to read' claptrap non-news.

Wanted to add one other thing, here are two of their major policy objectives:

# Allow 500,000 more 10 year olds to take part in Bikeability cycle training by 2012.

# Build an additional 250 Safe Links to Schools, connecting around 500 more schools to the National Cycle Network.

What a bunch of crazy eco-terrorist car hating maniacs they must be to want to achieve things like that...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this case you're not normal.

I think in every case I'm not normal :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that it will have been proposed somewhere (it's exactly the kind of thing that I'd expect some of the extremist campaigners to propose). However, there's a good chance that the proposal could have come from someone remotely affiliated with Cycle England (and not necessarily endorsed by Cycle England itself) only to be quoted completely out of context by Pistonheads. Various newspapers do this sort of thing to pseudo-"proposals" all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a let's float it and see idea from militant cyclists, who would be characterized in the mainstream media as thinking that they have more right to the road and pavement than cars, lorries, buses, pedestrians, not official policy from any mainstream group/political party.

I'd disagree with anyone who says that cyclists should have the right to share the pavement with pedestrians: round here, cyclists assume they have right of way on pavements and force pedestrians - pushchairs, etc - into the road. All road/pavement users should obey both the rules of the road and common sense. I've lost cyclist friends who haven't realised that if they can't see the whites of the eyes of a lorry driver, he doesn't know that they're there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That response doesn't address the key point that I was making: what about the pavements where cyclists do have the legal right to share with pedestrians? There are plenty of them around UEA, and plenty of them around the Met Office, to quote two examples.

In those cases the Highway Code actually encourages the cyclists to use the segregated facilities (though it is not mandatory), so the "cycling on the pavement should be illegal because it's illegal" argument isn't even applicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my money, whatever vehicle you are in control of you need to follow the rules, and if you don't there should be consequences. As in all reasonable cross sections of the population you will have idiots. (Hopefully making sense here, as important point but quite drunk!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts:

Motorists/cars kill hundreds of people every year. Bicycles don't.

Motorists/cars pollute the environment. Bicycles don't.

Motorists/cars damage all our standards of living through noise/stress/great big dual carriage ways etc getting between you and the shops. Bicycles don't (except for the heinous crime of jumping red lights/cycling on pavements etc (note the sarcasm))

Motorists/cars use up incredible amounts of the earths resources. Bicycles don't.

Cars make you fat and unhealthy. Bikes don't.

Cars are closed and private. Bikes are social and democratic.

My (rather biased) conclusion from the above then is that while cars are RUBBISH,bikes are GREAT. If the odd cyclist is guilty of going down a one way street the wrong way or jumping a red (usually a good idea to avoid the not inconsiderable risk of getting crushed by lorry etc) then i don't see that as a particularly big deal.

And if a cyclist decides to go on a empty(ish) pavement rather than risk life and limb, again whats the biggy (again i point anyone who disagrees towards the statistics - compare and contrast injuries/fatalities caused by cyclists as opposed to cars).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts:

Motorists/cars kill hundreds of people every year. Bicycles don't.

Motorists/cars pollute the environment. Bicycles don't.

Motorists/cars damage all our standards of living through noise/stress/great big dual carriage ways etc getting between you and the shops. Bicycles don't (except for the heinous crime of jumping red lights/cycling on pavements etc (note the sarcasm))

Motorists/cars use up incredible amounts of the earths resources. Bicycles don't.

Cars make you fat and unhealthy. Bikes don't.

Cars are closed and private. Bikes are social and democratic.

My (rather biased) conclusion from the above then is that while cars are RUBBISH,bikes are GREAT. If the odd cyclist is guilty of going down a one way street the wrong way or jumping a red (usually a good idea to avoid the not inconsiderable risk of getting crushed by lorry etc) then i don't see that as a particularly big deal.

And if a cyclist decides to go on a empty(ish) pavement rather than risk life and limb, again whats the biggy (again i point anyone who disagrees towards the statistics - compare and contrast injuries/fatalities caused by cyclists as opposed to cars).

Brilliant argument but a bike can't get me the 35 miles to work, whilst giving me time to get the kids ready to catch the school bus and still get to the office by 08:30. A bike can't collect the couple of tons of felled logs I use to heat the house each winter in place of fossil fuel heating oil and I can't bring the shopping home on my bike either.

I love my bike and love cycling, I also enjoy driving my car but would love the opportunity to use my bike and public transport more. But I do not have that option, I live in a rural area but not that remote and our bus service is unreliable and slow, the jopurney to work would take around 3 hours to get to central Telford then a four mile walk to my place of work. Many years ago I could have used public transport to get to work, but some lunatic ripped up all the railways lines around our area. Banish us from our cars by all means but give us an alternative before you do so or we'll all think its just another way to fleece the generally law abiding middle earning people.

The Pistonheads article by the way is a load of cobblers, the suggestion of motorists taking the blame for all cycling accidents was doing the rounds about 18 months ago. TWS is probably right in that it might have been a suggestion for some committee to discuss but has been taken out of all context for a story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant argument but a bike can't get me the 35 miles to work, whilst giving me time to get the kids ready to catch the school bus and still get to the office by 08:30. A bike can't collect the couple of tons of felled logs I use to heat the house each winter in place of fossil fuel heating oil and I can't bring the shopping home on my bike either.

I love my bike and love cycling, I also enjoy driving my car but would love the opportunity to use my bike and public transport more. But I do not have that option, I live in a rural area but not that remote and our bus service is unreliable and slow, the jopurney to work would take around 3 hours to get to central Telford then a four mile walk to my place of work. Many years ago I could have used public transport to get to work, but some lunatic ripped up all the railways lines around our area. Banish us from our cars by all means but give us an alternative before you do so or we'll all think its just another way to fleece the generally law abiding middle earning people.

The Pistonheads article by the way is a load of cobblers, the suggestion of motorists taking the blame for all cycling accidents was doing the rounds about 18 months ago. TWS is probably right in that it might have been a suggestion for some committee to discuss but has been taken out of all context for a story.

Yes to all the above. I blame Beeching!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this idea is flawed, as i've seen cyclists break the law on numourous occasions in cardiff

1) cycling side by side (only morons who love cycling who wear all the gear do this and i've had loads of arguements with them) it is also Illegal!

2) going through red lights Red means stop not go :) why do cyclists think they are above the law

mini rant over, why is it in this country that the motorist is taking the flak for everything :unsure:

first high road taxes (fuel) and now this, when is the madness going to stop??? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get a strong sense of there being an attitude of "motorists are being pulled up for breaking laws so why shouldn't cyclists?", which may be partly behind the "the law is the law" responses to the questioning of laws that prohibit certain cycling activities.

There is, though, some breaking of laws by cyclists that is clearly dangerous and shouldn't be allowed for legal or moral reasons. Going through red lights always involves a strong element of risk-taking as something else could easily be coming the other way, and riding two abreast is also dangerous, not to mention swerving repeatedly into the middle of the road. I don't think cyclists should be given those rights just because cycling is more environmentally friendly than driving or cyclists are more vulnerable or whatever.

Pedestrians are another problem, in the sense that it seems to be increasingly perceived that pedestrians have a right to run out right in front of cars and that the cars should be made to slow down to accommodate this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this idea is flawed, as i've seen cyclists break the law on numourous occasions in cardiff

1) cycling side by side (only morons who love cycling who wear all the gear do this and i've had loads of arguements with them) it is also Illegal!

2) going through red lights Red means stop not go :blink: why do cyclists think they are above the law

mini rant over, why is it in this country that the motorist is taking the flak for everything :unknw:

first high road taxes (fuel) and now this, when is the madness going to stop??? :unknw:

Oh dear better learn your highway code

66

You should

keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear

keep both feet on the pedals

never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

not ride close behind another vehicle

not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain

be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted

As is always the case there are good drivers and bad drivers and there are good cyclists and bad and to try and make the situation black or white just wont work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this idea is flawed, as i've seen cyclists break the law on numourous occasions in cardiff

1) cycling side by side (only morons who love cycling who wear all the gear do this and i've had loads of arguements with them) it is also Illegal!

i see this all the time...riding 2 sometimes 3 side by side across the road chatting away...happened last sunday 3 of them chatting holding up traffic so i drove right up behind them and sounded my horn..then they had the cheek to start waving their fist etc..i seriously considered stopping my car and giving somethin to wave their fists about.

my wife had an experience a couple years ago where she slow downed to let a cyclist through a tight space on a one way street..instead of getting thanks he spat on the car and kicked the door..because she was holding him up!!..what was worse was that she said he must have been in his 60s and should have known better :unknw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

The above rule is open to interpretation because it depends on what you call a narrow or busy road. Most of the times that I've seen cyclists two abreast, it's been on twisty, narrow country roads, so I would've thought they'd be in breach of the Highway Code.

Regarding the "no more than two abreast", leaving the letter of the law behind for a moment, what about the spirit of the law? It may well be intended to allow cyclists to overtake each other, and/or assuming that they will keep close enough to the side of the road to allow drivers to overtake without having to swerve onto the other side of the road. In practice we often find cyclists riding two abreast for long stretches with one of them practically in the middle of the road. I can see room for actions being within the letter, but not spirit, of the law here, which usually gives rise to arguments. (You can argue that they're violating the Highway Code by being inconsiderate of other road users, but again, it's a question of interpretation).

I agree that things are rarely black and white here- this goes for good & bad cyclists and drivers, but it also goes for correctness of rules and interpretations of said rules such as those of the Highway Code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the muppet cyclists this morning. First of a school of ignorant cyclists blocking the road. Later on cyclists three abreast one completely on the wrong side of the main road cycling happily towards oncoming traffic. There was another silly one but I can't remember how he was trying too kill himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not had a car for years. But, since then, I see cyclists on the pavement, the wrong side of the road, having no lights at night or in fog...What is it that these people want: all other road/pavement users to have X-ray vision, sonar and Superman's reactions - AND legal immunity from the consequences of their own arrogance! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×